Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

Yeah right, 'Excited Delirium' my ass...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

"Tasers are violent, dangerous instruments..."

I notice a trend.

In the past, editorials on the subject of tasers would often make the same sort of illogical statements that have been analyzed and shredded in this blog, and the opinion writer would often parrot the propaganda from Taser. Or if they happened to mention the words Taser and Death in the same headline, then they'd issue a "correction" the next day.

But in recent weeks, I notice that more and more editorials are making more statements that would have (even recently) caused Taser's non-PR and/or Less-than-Legal departments to go into spasms of well-rehearsed phony-rage. But now those editorials seem to go unchallenged (at least as far as we can see). Interesting.

For example, the Daytona Beach News-Journal [LINK] has included the choice sentence, "Tasers are violent, dangerous instruments that inflict immense pain."

The main point of the News-Journal editorial was to chastise the local police for not fully correcting their extremely-flawed taser 'Use Policy'. Even though they've finally brought it into rough alignment with common sense and long-established Civil Rights, they're still missing a few key points.

Is this a good place to mention again that ACLU-NC (Northern CA) found that 95% of law enforcement agencies were using taser 'Use Policies' written by Taser? And this in spite of Taser claiming that "TASER International does not create, recommend, or endorse policy."

No comments: